China can do this because their technocrats have no issue demolishing the homes of half a million rural folks to help the urban elites. There are trade offs in a democracy, it is designed to be slow because as a feature everyone has a voice.
We don’t get shiny trains, but we might have a more stable form of government?
I don't understand the nuances of Chinese property law, but I doubt you would see things like this if Chinese authorities could run people off their land for any old reason:
They can just demolish it, because it is their property. It's just the local authorities are stubborn in upholding the illusion of there being a choice in the matter. The media then got involved and it no longer became worth it demolishing it since it sets a good example for public opinion, and the owner will move out eventually anyways.
We don’t get shiny trains, but we might have a more stable form of government?